Skip to main content
1:30 pm
the majority of it happened to relate to the building itself which really falls under either building department or planning jurisdiction as it relates to what they are describing, which we have no control or ability to preside over specifically, so i would refer that back to both the department of building inspection and the planning department for review. as relates to this building permit, there is a lot of very complicated review on this. the building permit was applied for in 2004 and at the time of submital to planning and building, they did show a survey -- they did show a survey that shows the existing property line to be what it was historically. it did not take into consideration, as i stated again, the 2000 board resolution that accepted the
1:31 pm
excess portion of the public right of way which they are now encroaching. i don't know exactly what happened during the building permit process but both planning and building department approved the design. we are required to review the infrastructure, which involved the kin strux of a sidewalk along nianic to the official sidewalk width, which they have. there are no sidewalks along panama. there has been comments from the public related to the lack of travel on niantic street as relates to access to the bart station. i know the department of public works is currently working with the california department of public transportation, with caltrans, to see whether a sidewalk can be constructed adjacent to the freeway side of niantic. it is under continued
1:32 pm
discussion with caltrans at this point. honestly from the department's perspective, we were given this information kind of after the fact, after the building permit was approved, after construction had begun and well underway before we found out this issue. really there is only one of two alternatives right now to the property owner barring the demolition of this building. one is the major encroachment permit which is in front of you. the alternative is to vacate or purchase that portion of the right of way so that it's part of their building, part of their property now, and then they would be made -- then the applicant and the city would be made whole by them paying a fair market value for this piece of land. i'm not sure whether that answers all your questions. >> so we have some comments. supervisor cohen and then supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much. mr. kwan, do you have any idea what
1:33 pm
the range would be of fair market value for the hundred feet of encroachment that this property owner has done. >> honest truth, the department won't know and that's why the applicant would need to engage the department of real estate to find out what the fair market value would be. >> supervisor wiener. >> is the owner of the property or project sponsor here? >> i don't believe so. i believe the agent that processed this permit is here but i'm not sure whether they have anything significant that they can add at this point. >> the owner of the property or representative isn't planning to address this committee? >> i do not see him present at this point. >> they are requesting the encroachment. okay. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you, i wasn't quite finished yet. supervisor wiener actually asked one of the questions that
1:34 pm
-- no, it's okay -- that was on the tip of my tongue, where is the property owner? i find it very interesting, we're deliberating on a matter and the property owner is not here, they have not engaged with my office nor supervisor wiener's office. i am inclined to request that dpw and planning come back, that we reject this resolution and that they come back with a street vacation rather than a major encroachment. i think that might be the best alternative course of action which you have outlined today here at the podium. so, mr. chair, i don't know if there's any more -- looks like supervisor wiener wants --. >> if we were, if the board was to reject the major encroachment are they able, i assume they could, if they wanted to, try to apply again in the future? >> yes, the applicant can reapply at some point in the future but normally on these
1:35 pm
rejections i believe they cannot reapply for one year. it still creates this problem where the building i believe was never final. they have a temporary certificate of occupancy that they are currently sitting on. i don't know right now. again, i leave that to the building department. from my understanding, based upon what the public have stated, that there are actually people residing in this building. >> and any negotiations to purchase the right of way that's been encroached on, that would also -- i know there are issues with the general plan, but that would also have to come to the board of supervisors for approval, correct? >> correct, that would be an ordinance that would come back to the full board of supervisors. >> what would happen if there were no approval, the encroachment permit or the major encroachment and if there
1:36 pm
were no sale, either because you couldn't come to terms or because the board did not accept it, what happens in that situation? i know there's a cloud on the title, right? >> the department would normally engage with the department of building inspection, the building is constructed outside the property line, and let the building department take appropriate action because it's currently defined as an unpermitted encroachment. >> how many people are in this building. >> the permit states it is a one family unit. >> i've heard there may be more than one family. >> according to the building department documentation it is a one family dwelling. if there are suggestions there is more than one family, maybe subdivided, i have to refer back to the building department. >> how long has it been occupied now, do we know? >> i was unaware it was
1:37 pm
occupied. i'm hearing this after the fact in many cases. >> question for the city attorney, in terms of the actions we can take today and what would constitute a full rejection as opposed to -- what are our options? >> tom gitner, deputy city attorney. basically your options are you can adopt the resolution approving the encroachment overturning the department's decision. you can approve a resolution rejecting -- or rejecting the encroachment and approving the department's decision. those are basically your two options. you could continue the matter for further information and if you are inclined to reject the encroachment, i'd also probably recommend that you continue it so that we can work with the department to prepare a new resolution. the resolution
1:38 pm
before you would have to be changed somewhat significantly. >> to reject? >> to reject, right. >> and if we table the matter? >> clarification. >> and if we were to table the item what would the effect be? >> it would -- let me look. i believe the effect would, the practical effect would be that the department's decision would stand. i don't believe there's a particular timeline for the board to act on the matter. give me one second to look. >> okay. we could also continue to the call of the chair, would that be another option? >> yes. >> so supervisor cohen had started to make a motion. it sounds like mr. gibner is
1:39 pm
giving us a number of options. i think we need to give dpw a chance to think about how this ordinance may be modified. i heard a suggestion also from supervisor cohen to reject the proposal before us as well, but i'd like to know kind of what the wishes of the body is. >> if i were to vote today, i would vote to reject it. we do have an option to continuing to the call of the chair to get more information, but i'm not, i don't have a strong opinion between the two, although it sounds like we don't have a resolution disapproving it before us and so does that mean that we're not capable of rejecting it today? >> you can amend the resolution that's before you to reject and we could work with the department after the meeting to make sure that that -- what the committee is asking for gets into the resolution. it will be a number of changes.
1:40 pm
like you said, you could make that vote today, take that vote today. >> i'm curious to know what my colleagues think. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you, i just wanted to reiterate my original question. my discussions with the department, specifically the department of dpw, it would be, they would agree to us rejecting this and sending it back and asking to come back with a street vacation rather than a major encroachment. so that's the course of action i would like to propose that we take today. >> so that sounds to me like it's a motion to reject this resolution. >> yes. >> amend the resolution as a rejection. >> amend the resolution as a rejection. >> mr. gibner indicated that the resolution before us to --. >> either up or down. >> is to approve the encroachment. i think it would require a motion to amend the
1:41 pm
resolution to reject and then to forward that resolution to the board. >> correct. >> so there's a motion -- there is an amendment to the table to reject. are there any objections? so -- and then on the motion itself as amended to reject, are there any objections? >> that would be to forward the amended resolution to the board with a recommendation to adopt it. >> yes. so without objection. thank you. thank you, mr. gibner. miss miller, could you please call item no. 2? >> item no. 2 is a resolution approving the transfer of air space parcel agreements at 15 one-third street. >> thank you, and this item is sponsored by supervisor jane kim. supervisor kim. >> thank you for hearing us
1:42 pm
today. this is the last piece of the puzzle of a larger process, dialogue and approvals process that has occurred between the city and san francisco museum of modern art to expand the current museum and to rebuild fire station 1. it is resolution approving and authorizing the director of real estate to execute an agreement of transfer of air space parcel at 151 third street to now the successor agency of redevelopment to the museum of modern art. this resolution would authorize the department to execute this agreement and here to talk about it in more detail is john updike from the department of real estate. >> thank you, supervisor kim, members. committee, john updike, director of real estate. and i thought this item was complicated, but maybe it's not in comparison. today we seek your positive recommendation for two transactions related to the
1:43 pm
expansion of the san francisco museum of modern art. the sf moma project calls for an expansion of the existing facility including a new approximately 200 foot tall building that extends into 3 different areas on to the city's fire station no. 1 at 676 howard, on to hunt street and on to air space owned by the redevelopment agency above 151 third street. the expansion project provides new space to properly display the fisher collection and other works of art. it enhances public access. it improves the city's cultural and public landscape, enhances tourism and therefore will improve general fund revenues. the board of supervisors previously approved what we termed a conditional land disposition and acquisition agreement, which is just fancy terminology for an exchange agreement to address conveying the needed rights to 676 howard and to hunt street. in exchange for the delivery of a
1:44 pm
new replacement fire station no. 1, which is now nearly completed at 935 folsom street, left to be addressed until now was an air space parcel. now owned by the successor agency to redevelopment, it lies between elevations 109.5 feet and 165.5 feet above sea level on a sloping plain as somewhat clearly shown on what i am about to show you. and my apologies, air space is very difficult to depict but we're going to do our best here. so we look at the overhead. the actual area of conveyance of here, this is looking at it from ground level looking at the facade. so that's the slight of air that is proposed to be conveyed. a different look with the building massing shown in black. the cross hatched area reflects the area to be sold.
1:45 pm
one more look. the existing facility with the new facility's facade. a different perspective looking down upon the property and you can see the height change with the new section. one more that i think might help, also a facade look. you can see how it rises from the existing site. so this parcel is already burdened with a deed restriction that severely limits its use and considering that restriction was appraised by a consultant appraiser to have zero fair market value, that is a value conclusion with which i concured. on october 12, 2012 the oversight board of the successor agency adopted 152012
1:46 pm
approving transfer of the air space parcel to the city through a negotiated transfer agreement. now we're before you with not only that agreement but the negotiated agreement to transfer this air space parcel from the city to sf moma. the deed limiting the use to the museum's nonprofit operations will remain in space. on november 10, 2011, the planning commission certified the final eir, adopted ceqa findings as found in your board package today. on january 10, 2012, the board of supervisors affirmed on appeal that certification. on january 24th, 2012, the board of supervisors rezoned the city properties involved in this project, that was through ordinance 1112, and adopted add its own those ceqa findings. these transactions now before you are within the scope of the project analyzed in the final
1:47 pm
eir, and the resolution today asks the board to adopt and incorporate by reference those same ceqa findings as set forth in the planning commission motion 18486 which is also included in your package. so i'm joined by representatives of sf moma, i ask for your positive recommendations so this matter can move forward to the december 11 board meeting which will allow us to remain on schedule for a closing of he is escrow in the first quarter of 2013. happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. updike. if there are no further questions let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> thank you, supervisor, steve barlgts on behalf of the san francisco museum of modern art. john gave a clear explanation of what's going on. i just want to add a few things. the reason this transaction lagged behind the others is
1:48 pm
because this air space parcel was not owned by the city but instead the redevelopment agency. the plan from the beginning was the redevelopment agency would do the conveyance. earlier this year you recall the state of california dissolved the redevelopment agency and they became unable to do the conveyance. so this transaction lagged behind. the successor agency and we worked together in such a way that the state of california would approve it. this is the last piece of the transaction that needs to occur so that the 4 properties can be combined and the expansion project can be built on the 4 properties together and for the fire station that's almost complete now on folsom street to be conveyed to the city.
1:49 pm
a condition of the conveyance of the new fire station to the city is that we, sf moma, have a building permit. that building permit is being processed now and will be ready to be issued after the first of the year so that this conveyance is necessary so that the building permit can issue and the fire station can transfer, we can demolish the existing fire station and begin construction. we think the construction will start in about march of 2013, so it's very timely that this resolution be adopted now so that the transactions can close in january. don young, one of the project managers from moma, is also here and we appreciate your consideration of this transaction. all the city's staff time that's gone into it. thank you. >> thank you. is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item?
1:50 pm
>> ronald ravine, i don't want to hold up the tenants but i want to say something on this. i hope, supervisor wiener, this is one of the things that you are opposed to. i hope somebody at the last minute will file another appeal against this thing because one of the reasons people wait until the last minute is because there is so much gobbledygook, so much changing of zoning and so many meetings that happen that transfer this from that and this and that and the old redevelopment agency transfers it to the city, it's almost like 3 card monte i hope someone who is directly affected by this thing, i heard something changed from 109 feet to 169 feet but this is going to be 200 feet. in other words i hope someone who knows more about this thing than i do will file something at the last minute to oppose it. thank you. >> thank you, is there anyone else that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, supervisor kim. >> thank you, just a point of
1:51 pm
clarification, actually. this project hs already been appealed and this project was actually certified by the board last year, so that has already gone through regarding this project, but this has largely been approved by the board, this is just one final piece of a project that we've already, that this board has already supported and would love the positive recommendation of the land use committee. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor kim. colleagues, can we adopt this with a positive recommendation without objection? thank you. thank you. miss miller, could you please call the next item? >> item no. 3 is an ordinance amending administrative code, chapter 37, for hearings on tenant allegations of land lord harassment. >> thank you, we're waiting for supervisor olage to join
1:52 pm
us. so, miss miller, could you please see -- oh, here is supervisor olage so, supervisor olage, item no. 3 has been called and on our hearings on tenant allegations of land lord harassment to recover possession of the tenant's unit. supervisor. >> colleagues, before you is a proposed ordinance which would amend admin code chapter 37, the residential rent stablization and would add a new section, 37.9, which would lay out an administrative procedure for whenever a tenant submits a report alleging
1:53 pm
wrongful attempt to recover possession of the tenant's unit to the rent board. this procedure is outlined on page 16 of your packet. it would require the rent board to send a notice of receipt and a summary of the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants regarding possession of and eviction from residential rental units to any tenant who has filed a report of alleged harassment. it also allows the executive director of the rent board to schedule an investigative hearing on the allegations before a board administrative law judge where both the tenant and the land lord may appear to make oral and written presentations including providing witnesses. colleagues, the language before you is significantly different from the original language i sble -- introduced during the summer which
1:54 pm
provided damages and additions to the list of harassment. after discussions with the lean wolf of the rent board, the city attorney and jeff buckly from the mayor's office, we feel what is before you is a simple administrative change which provides a clear process for reporting alleged harassment claims for both tenants and land lords and also steers clear of any legal issues from prop m there are several members of the public who wish to speak to this day. it is considerably watered down from what we had proposed. >> any presentations by department staff or supervisor olage >> no, that's really all i have. >> okay, is the rent board
1:55 pm
here? >> no, i guess not. >> has the rent board considered this or held a hearing on it, made a recommendation? >> not that i'm aware of. >> any other questions, colleagues, of supervisor olage? then let's open this up for public comment. i don't have any speaker cards. actually, yes, we do. justice morgan, josh vining, followed by bart murphy. >> i'd like to be alloted time before my comment for a point of information. the public was informed that this meeting on this specific issue was in another room. no. 2, on the
1:56 pm
hard copy it says it's under consideration for tomorrow, which is not noticed, and the announcement from alicia miller is that it's considered the 11 *t. i'd like that cleared up before my comment, please. i only attended because we were misinformed about the location. that is not a comment on the subsection 37.9. point of order, point of information. could i have a comment, please? >> please continue your testimony and we'll address it afterwards. please continue. >> i was the only unpaid tenant rep in the tender loin sro mismanaged by the john stewart company episcopal community services and financed
1:57 pm
by trent ward. i said under oath, with a 42 1/2 million dollar budget to manage our building why don't we have an elevator 30 out of 36 months having to crawl up 5 1/2 stories to her unit. i went from having bronchitis to pulmonary disease and controlled diabetes to uncontrolled diabetes because of lack of an elevator. when i said i was getting retaliatory behavior by the john stewart staff, they said that's not our job. i am still paying for that. i found out 2 years after the staff they claim i owe them rent when my retaliatory eviction was not about nonpayment of rent. i am
1:58 pm
having problems getting housing because of this. i want property management companies to be included in subsection 37.9 and let's have some sun shine laws applied about how we are harassed after the point legally as well as on site. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is josh vining, i'm an organize er with the mission sro collaborative. i am just here in support of the hassle free housing and i just wanted to talk a little bit about the work we do at the mission sro collaborative because we go out into residential hotels in the mission district 5 days a week and do direct outreach to tenants who live in those sro's. and what we find is that there is land lord harassment happening in sro's and i'm sure
1:59 pm
it's happening in all other housing types in san francisco. the way that the market is right now is a disincentive really for tenants to be able to bring up any of their concerns for repairs or modifications that need to be made within their rooms. what i hear from tenants, you know, week after week is that they are afraid of retaliation from their land lord. they are afraid that for simply standing up and asserting their rights that they have under the rent ordinance that they are going to be targeted by their landlord for some other action. thinking back to 2008 with proposition m, i know a lot of us had really high hopes that there was going to be sort of a major sea change in the way that, in the way that land lord and tenant disputes was happening and with retaliation but i think

tv
[untitled]
December 3, 2012 1:30pm-2:00pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 5, The City 4, San Francisco 4, Mr. Gibner 3, California 3, Sf Moma 3, John Updike 2, Olage 2, Cohen 2, John Stewart 2, Wiener 2, Josh Vining 2, Miller 2, Subsection 2, Niantic 2, Parcel 2, Caltrans 2, Tom Gitner 1, Mr. Chair 1, Mr. Kwan 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color